Simon Cozens skribis 2004-07-12 12:58 (+0100):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> > Could methods like "[]" and "{}" *default* to "postcircumfix:"?
> A more interesting question is "does it mean anything for them *not* to be
> postcircumfix"?Not as a method, I think. > After all, the only other use would be "$foo.[]($bar, $baz)", which is > practically identical. Unless I am mistaken, $foo.[]($bar, $baz) is a syntax error and to call interpunction-methods explicitly (verbosely), the full names need to be used: $foo.postcircumfix:[]($bar), and all other methods need to have ^<letter>\w*$ names. > Unless you want to make [$foo] the default, and I suspect that would > be unwise. Hm, circumfix operators as methods? Interesting idea, but what would that do with [ $foo, $bar ], where $foo and $bar have a very different circumfix:[] operator? Juerd
